Is it easier to dissolve a domestic partnership than it is to get a divorce?

I think it should have gone the other way i.e. NO government involvement with "marriage" at all but only "domestic partnership" for everyone with exact same set of rules, duties, rights etc.

Then let couples have "marriage" through any ceremony -- religious or whatever -- they wanted.

But that one never worked for some reason...historical? political?

@3: Yes, long established law is why.

I might be one of the lucky few who get to have a divorce without ever having gotten married.

Eli, you got the exception wrong. The law says that "same-sex domestic partnerships in which both partners are under 62 years of age" will convert to marriage. BOTH partners have to be under 62. This means all domestic partners except partners where ONE is 62 or over.

This does not mean what you wrote: " all domestic partners (*except domestic partners who are both age 62 or over)."

We registered as domestic partners several years before Ref 74. When marriage equality passed, we did not get married immediately; we waited 6 months or so. Over that time, we were notified at least twice by the state that our domestic partnership would auto-convert on June 30. I'm sure that if we hadn't got married, we'd have continued to receive more notices. So it isn't like this will be a surprise to anyone. People have had ample time to dissolve their DP if they wanted to.

The alternative could be far worse. What if instead the state automatically dissolved all DPs (under 62) after June 30, leaving all those couples without the legal protections they thought they had signed up for? DP was literally sold as everything but marriage in name only, with all the legal protections of marriage within the state. That is what we signed up for when we initially registered.

When R-74 passed, we even gave brief consideration to just letting our DP roll over automatically into a legal marriage. We could have been one of the 3,000-4,000 people you're talking about. That would have been just fine with us. In the end we decided to make a ceremony out of it and formalize it. But that was mostly just an excuse to have a big party with friends and relatives, and to legalize it sooner.

PS: I love that photo. As an aside, I've met Pete-e and Jane several times over the years. They are the cutest, nicest, most delightful little old ladies in the universe. No lie.

@9
Actually I think
1. That you ought to learn to read before you offer any comments.
2. If you are genuinely upset by my historical musing then you ought to check in with a counselor, psychiatrist etc.

Nice to see Dow Constantine in that shot. Ran into him in the bar at the 5 Point not too long ago. I was kind of shocked to see a prominent politician at one of my dive bars, but he said he's been drinking there for decades.

I also asked him when he's going to run for governor and he said it will happen one day.

@7 & 8: Fixed, thanks.

@12: "historical musing"
Made me snort. You're trying a little hard to come across as erudite and sagacious.

Does this make Washington the first jurisdiction in human history to legally force gay people to marry? Tony Perkins, check your blood pressure. Animals and pedophiles, beware, the State Legislature is coming for you next!

@14, @16

Gotcha.

So happy, I'm not gonna be married: My out of state paperwork doesn't count.

http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/domesticpart…